Yes, why would a single delay of more than target be considered as a reason to take action? I thought Van did a very nice job of explaining this last Monday.
On 8/3/12 11:45 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 19:44 -0700, Dave Täht wrote: >> From: Dave Taht <[email protected]> >> >> The consensus at ietf was that ecn marking should start at >> target, and then the results fed into the codel drop scheduler. >> >> While I agree with the latter, I feel that waiting an interval >> before starting to mark will be more in-tune with the concept >> of a sojourn time, and lead to better utilization. >> >> As I am outnumbered and outgunned, do it at target. > > Well, thats a huge way to favor non ECN flows against ECN flows. > > Marking _all_ ECN enabled packets just because last packet sent had a > sojourn time above target is going to throttle ECN flows and let non ECN > flows going full speed and take whole bandwidth. > > Doing so is a nice way to keep users switching to ECN one day. > > IETF could just say : ECN is doomed, forget about it, dont even try. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Codel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel > _______________________________________________ Codel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel
